Carol Heller v. Shaw Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a proper differential diagnosis is adequate to support expert medical opinion on causation
• concluding that district court erred insofar as it “required [medical expert] to ‘rule out all alternative possible causes’ ”
• holding that expert testimony cannot be excluded simply because the expert uses one test rather than another, when both tests are accepted in the field and reach reliable results
• holding that medical experts may reach conclusions regarding causation, however, district courts may exclude expert testimony that does “not reliably flow from th[e] data and methodology”
• holding that expert testimony cannot be excluded simply because the expert uses one test rather than another, when both tests are accepted in the field and both reach reliable results
• concluding thorough differential diagnosis could support general causation even if no published studies existed in support, if supported by strong temporal relationship

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).